Skip to main content

About this Show

All In With Chris Hayes

News/Business. (2013)

NETWORK

DURATION
01:01:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel v787

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
1920

PIXEL HEIGHT
1080

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Obama 16, Russia 13, Pravda 10, Us 10, John Mccain 8, Boehner 5, America 5, Msnbc 4, Michigan 4, Francis 4, Underarm 4, John Boehner 4, U.s. 3, Washington 3, New York 3, Vladimir Putin 3, Angie 3, Chris Hayes 3, Simon Mccoy 3, Riley 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  MSNBC    All In With Chris Hayes    News/Business.  (2013)  

    September 20, 2013
    12:00 - 1:01am PDT  

12:00am
by the way, my book on o'neil and reagan will be out by then. i sincerely hope it helps. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening, from new york. i'm chris hayes. tonight on "all in," an absolute new low in the house of representatives today as the gop squeaks through a vote to take food out of the mouths of the poor. we'll tell you what makes that even more outrageous than it first appears. also tonight, what happens when john mccain writes an op-ed that nobody reads? plus, another installment of best pope ever! all that's coming up! but tonight we begin, one day closer to a shutdown and one day closer to a total meltdown within the republican party. this morning, speaker john boehner once again taking shots at senate republicans, repeating that he expects them to put up a worthy fight to defund obama care. which led to senators mike lee
12:01am
and ted cruz, just hours later, appearing with eight house republicans for a bit of damage control. we are watching right now, the republican party, cannibalize itself in realtime. but here's the thing. that does not mean we are going to avoid a government shutdown, or even a adult over this crew shade to take down obama care. because the passion on obama care, the zealotry that makes republicans willing to shut down the u.s. government to kill it, that hasn't got anywhere. >> the reason i came to congress after a 12-year hiatus, is because this bill is so oppressive and so hurtful. >> this is going to be a law that we see already as hurting people. >> i will do everything necessary and anything possible to defund obama care. >> reporter: more than two years after the president signed his health care law, the republican party's signature national priority is still destroying it. but as conservative lawmakers continue to foam at the mouth,
12:02am
it's worth asking, why does the republican party have an almost religious obsession with obama care? >> let's repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens. >> the tea party wing of the modern republican party was built every step of the way in singular opposition to obama care. that is its foundation and enduring mission. the origin story begins in hot, crowded town halls across the country. >> people are packing town hall meetings with politicians during the august congressional race. >> crowds were whipped into frenzies with a mythical death panels, soviet-style rationed care, and a secret plot to cut medicare. >> one day god is going to stand before you, and he's going to judge you. >> i don't want this country turning into russia, turning into a socialized country. >> and i don't want the government to do it for me.
12:03am
>> i am not a right-wing wacko. >> i pay for my health care cash. >> i want to know if it's coming out of my paycheck, yes or no. >> i don't believe this is just about health care. this is about the systemic dismantling of this country. >> you are a fraud! and you're sentencing this person to death under the obama plan! >> reporter: all of it, aided and abetted by republican politicians. >> we should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandpa. >> reporter: it was the momentum from that frenzy that carried scott brown to victory in massachusetts, giving republicans a chance to, quote, bury obama care with kennedy. a dramatic upset that robbed the democrats of their filibuster-proof majority in the senate. >> i hereby say, health care is dead. >> reporter: but democrats improbably persevered, and pushed through the health care bill. republicans then focused their energy on a spate of surprise lower court rulings on the law. >> thank god! >> contrary to initial reports,
12:04am
the supreme court upheld the individual mandate and broke their collective hearts. now, after 40-something meaningless repeal votes, conservatives are threatening u.s. government default, and releasing ads like this. it should come as no shock that that ad, of an uncle sam clown, violating a woman, is not what the law does. what the law actually does is attempt to solve a moral, social, and economic problem that has plagued the country for decades. >> a sign of the times in los angeles these past couple of days. a sports arena transformed into the world's biggest doctor's office. thousands showed up to receive free health care services. a lot of them actually have jobs, but they either have no insurance or even with it, their medical care is still too expensive. >> let's be clear. right now, the republican party is working to kill a law that would provide access to health
12:05am
insurance to 30 million people who did not have it before. joining me now is congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz, democrat from florida, chair of the democratic national committee. is there some point where there is victory here? are we doomed to be fighting about obama care until i am an old man? >> i don't think so. in fact, that is exactly why the tea party republicans are hell-bent on doing everything they can to try to stop obama care from going online on october 1st. because even as ted cruz said the other day, this is the real transparent deal here, chris, is that they know that once people realize the benefits of obama care, once they can no longer be dropped or denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, once they are able to fully benefit from the coverage that will be provided, they're not going to want to let it go. they're going to realize that
12:06am
the bogeyman that the republicans and the tea party have put up was just that. it was as fictional as the bogeyman of our childhood. >> so you think this push right now, this fall, that the reason that the fight has doubled down right now, as we head up against both a continuing resolution deadline, that happens to be the same deadline as the day that the health policy goes into effect, you think this is a last-gasp attempt to kill the thing before it starts delivering the tangible benefits that have been promised. >> absolutely. the tea partyers are desperate to prevent people from realizing the full scope of the benefits to their lives that obama care will provide. the women who will, you know, be able to get their annual checkups and preventative care, which is already occurring. the -- no more of annual or lifetime caps. young adults who can stay on their parent's coverage until their 26. the side-by-side coverage they can compare.
12:07am
the 30 million people that will over the next few years will get coverage they don't have now. that is what the republicans are desperate to prevent from coming fully online. they know there's no coming back after that, and they know they will have lost. that's why they're willing to harm the economy in order to stop it from happening. >> so as you watch this kind of amazing war of words escalating between members of the house. we're talking to every reporter they can find anonymously, saying incredibly increasingly nasty things about each other, are you savoring this? has this been a delicious few days? >> absolutely not. i'm an elected member of congress and i think this is sad and pathetic. what's the most disturbing is that the the civil war that has been going on within the republican party, particularly in congress, you know, is over. and the tea party has clearly won pop you have john boehner, the speaker of the house, who has essentially ceded all of his party to a hard-core group of
12:08am
his tea party members, and the tail is wagging the dog. he's literally willing to let them drive the economy over a cliff, and it's just a matter of which car that they go in. is it going to be shut the government down or is it going to be default through not raising our debt ceiling. >> here's my question to you. one thing i worry about that as we follow the bouncing ball that is the obama -- de-fund obama care story, which has already blocked two nights a row, the thing we're focused on, that what is going to come out of this entire thing is that the sequester cuts, which six months ago were the most controversial policy in all of american politics, are going to be the moderate fallback concession position, once they're done failing at repealing obama care. >> you know, a number of us were talking about that on the house floor tonight. and, you know, ironically, you know, the best potential fall back position could be that we get out of this by not shutting the government down, and just
12:09am
going with 988 as a limit, but that's the sequester levels. and i'll tell you, there are many, many democrats who are not okay with that. at the end of the day, chris, what has to happen, in order for us to avoid government shutdown, is set aside the ideological battle over obama care, and focus on making sure that we can come together, as a congress, not as hyperpartisan tea party -- >> let's balance the scales. house democratic caucus says you won't vote for anything unless they get rid of the sequester. everybody threaten a shutdown and let's make it happen. debbie wasserman schultz, thank you so much. joining me now is robert costa with the conservative national review, and cnbc contributor, who himself has been pulled into the maelstrom of the gop civil war. okay, i'm going to read you two quotes. this is my favorite. this is a senior house republican source quipping to "huffington post" about ted cruz.
12:10am
cruz is the leader of a secret cabal of leftists that are seeking control of the conservative movement. their aim is to force the party to take on suicidal missions to destroy the movement from within. now, that's not that different from a number of off the record quotes that you got today in a really good piece you wrote for the "national review" about cruz's critics. when that piece was posted, the very influential radio show host, mark levine, tweeted that, "why is nro trashing cruz?" did you trash ted cruz and how did you get pulling into this thing? >> mark levine and others are championing ted cruz. i think he's doing a great thing by trying to tie the cr to defunding. but what you're seeing play out is a civil war. it's not behind the scenes. it's out in the open. speaker john boehner is putting pressure on senator cruz and other senate conservatives to fall through. to get the votes for defunding, but of course we know that's going to be very difficult.
12:11am
>> here's the thing. the reason that the drama seems so high and the reason that people are now going at each other in the public spotlight is everyone understands, they are now all collectively pursuing a doomed strategy. i mean, is that realization dawning on everyone? >> that's exactly right. there's really a strange thing happening within the republican party. we saw in the summer, senator ted cruz went on a nine-city tour with heritage foundation, with heritage action, stoking activists. telling activists that de-funding is a possibility. it got so big in the conservative movement, as an idea, as a cause, that they're now having to go through the motions, pass this vote in the house, but there'll have to be a plan "b." and behind the scenes, when i talked to my leadership sources, they're already looking at a plan "b," to pass a clean cr eventually, and use the debt limit as a leverage point. >> that's the scary thing to me
12:12am
if the idea is to get through the cr and use the debt ceiling as leverage, what suggests to them that the president will be anymore willing to take a hatchet to obama care then than he is now? >> that's exactly right. and the white house is in a better strategic position now than they were in the summer of 2011, when they did deal on the debt limit. now the president just won re-election, and he has a senate majority. here's the question for boehner. can he break the so-called hastert rule. will he go to nancy pelosi and ask for democratic votes to try to cobble together some type of bipartisan compromise, not only with the cr, but with the debt limit. >> would that be the end of him? i think he has one of those left in his speakership. i hope it's on comprehensive immigration reform, but i also feel that john boehner literally has one more of those in his entire speakership, and then it's done, because there's only so many times he can do it. >> i agree with you on speaker boehner, chris. i think speaker boehner's power
12:13am
right now is so fragile, if he actually has to break the hastert rule on the cr or debt limit, the chances for immigration reform will be very small. and speaker boehner right now is just trying to survive. he's going to his conference every day and saying, just try to come with me. i'm throwing you a bone with this vote on friday, but eventually we'll have to come together. >> finally and quickly, why do they hate ted cruz so much? i cannot get over the anonymous quotes we've been reading. it feels like there was this dam of content that is now broken, and everyone feels so delighted to express how much they've been hating this dude from the day he showed up. >> here's, real quick, why they don't like senator cruz in the house? house republicans want to determine their own plan. for three months, senator cruz has been wagging his finger at senator boehner, dictating the strategy and they don't like to be dictated to. >> robert costa from the "national review," thank you so much. in the battle of on east side, it is vladimir putin, one,
12:14am
john mccain, zero. i'll explain, coming up. my doctor and i went with axiron, the only underarm low t treatment. axiron can restore t levels to normal in about 2 weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18 or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. ask your doctor about the only underarm low t treatment,
12:15am
axiron.
12:16am
oh, hello there. i'm chris hayes and i'm here to talk to you about maximum viralty. no, it's not an herbal supplement, it's marketing mumbo jumbo having to do with the latest social media craze. facebook.com. everyone is talking about it. we here at "all in" have our own page on facebook.com and it's called facebook.com/allinwithchris. here you will find all the great clips from our show, articles from the "all in" reporters, all sorts of bonus content, web chats, good charts, and crazy video. but unless you go to this page and click the "like" button with the little thumbs up icon, "all in" will never achieve maximum viralty. won't you please like us today? thank you so much.
12:17am
12:18am
a big, big win for senator john mccain today. at least, that's what john mccain thought. after vladimir putin successfully pulled off one of the great global trolling enterprises in history, by placing an op-ed in "the new york times," making a direct appeal to the american people, mccain tried to do him one better, by publishing an op-ed in the newspaper that served a as the mouthpiece to communist russia. there was just one little problem. it is not the pravda john mccain was thinking of when he first hatched the idea in a discussion about putin's "times" op-ed. >> i would like to have a chance to have a commentary in pravda. >> the pravda that mccain was thinking of, that was the
12:19am
original state newspaper that for 80 years delivered what was literally the party line of communist russia. the current "pravda" is a weird orphan of that one and has nowhere near the influence "the new york times" has in america. pravda is the 535th most read website in russia. though to be fair, i don't think any of the other sites accept op-eds. zlat described the new pravda as a cross between the worldnetdaily and "the national enquirer," with headlines of, an expose of boston marathon bombing hoax," and "13 terribly weird facts about women." not exactlily a platform of global prestige. but what mccain's decision to publish in this "pravda" shows
12:20am
us, the old habits of cold warriors die very, very hard. joining me now is matt taibbi, contributing editor for "rolling stone." he lived and worked as a journalist in russia for quite a few years. he speaks fluent russian. >> ten years of it. >> did anyone read john mccain's op-ed? >> i seriously doubt it. i actually worked in the pravda building, believe it or not, way back when, and pravda was a dead publication. that is what people wrapped their fish in, and that was in its heyday. i remember being in that building and literally having to touch somebody to make sure he was still alive. and that was in the early '90s. so pravda is a joke. it has been a joke for a couple of decades. it's apparently making a comeback, as kind of this weird, quirky, internet conspiracy site, but it's nothing like the official -- >> the big "new york times"? >> exactly, yeah. >> if you wanted to start a conversation in russia, because
12:21am
i think part of the point here about john mccain kind of coming back is like, we have a free press, and you in russia don't. a, is that true? and b, if you actually wanted to address the russian people over the heads of vladimir putin, what would you do? where would you go? >> you would go to an outstanding, incredibly brave publication that, you know, is renowned throughout the former soviet countries as kind of a herald of investigative journalism. you might have heard people like ana polakovska. >> ana shot and killed, murdered, both returning to their apartments with groceries. >> i knew, vaguely, both of those people. they were both killed for various reasons. and, you know, they have continued to publish despite the violence that's been committed against the staff. >> here's what's hilarious to me. is that this sort of offhand mention of pravda. you see this sometimes in republican politicians or even all politicians, will slip up
12:22am
and call it the ussr, the soviet union, and how much do you think john mccain's kind of vestigel cold war attitude forms how he's thinking about russia and vladimir putin now and how far is that leading us astray? >> you can tell, the only thing they knew about russia was the wendy's swimwear commercial. people don't -- they have not broken out of the old idea of what russia is all about. they still think of it as communist or pseudo communist, where in fact it's evolved into sort of a third world mafia state, that is nothing like -- well, it's like it, but very different in significant ways and i think people haven't move past that. >> in terms of a third world mafia state, some of the mccain op-ed in content is quite good. he talks about to the russian people and says, they don't respect your dignity, accept your authority over them, they punish dissent and imprison opponents. they rig your elections. >> all true.
12:23am
>> that's true? >> they perpetuate your power, terrorize and assassinate journalists who try to expose their corruption. >> i saw that all firsthand and there are many who would agree with that passage. and the only ones who wouldn't would be in the putin government. >> here's another quote. this is from steven cohn, we've had on the show. very renowned scholar of russia for his career. and he says that we are essentially characterizing putin in way that's harmful to our u.s. interests and harmful of our understanding in what's going on in russia. it's not directed at our show, but he talks about how everyone wants to put him topless, which we do all the time, it's basically an editorial rule, all photos of putin need to be topless. he says, instead of embracing russian president vladimir putin's proposal to save washington from another disastrous war, influential segments of the american political media establishment are bent on discrediting him and thus in effect the alternative to war he represents.
12:24am
>> parts of his politics are democratic. parts of them are extremely authoritarian. it's hard to tell exactly how sincere he is, and this whole syria thing. but clearly he has a hold over the country that boras yellsen never had. he's a genuine leader in the sense that that old administration never was. he should be taken seriously, i think. it's just, we have a problem doing it, because he lends himself to this kind of satire. >> that's exactly right. cable news producers thank him every. matt taibbi from "rolling stone," thank you so much. we'll be right back with click three.
12:25am
12:26am
12:27am
12:28am
my spiritual crush on the new pope is intensifying. i'll tell you the latest thing he said that has my heart all aflutter. and republicans vote to write government checks to rich people at the expense of poor people, literally. i will explain, ahead. but first, i want to share the three awesomest things on the internet today, beginning with news from across the pond. bbc news presenter simon mccoy is no stranger to the viral video. here he is bitching about the royal baby coverage. >> if you come from here, of course, none of it news, because continue i don't come from buckingham. >> earlier this week, mr. mccoy, intendtology reach for his ipad, but instead grabbed a realm of printer paper. >> good morning.
12:29am
welcome to bbc news. plans for privately run drunk tanks to tackle alcohol-fueled disorder have been backed by police chiefs. under the proposal, drunk troublemakers will be taken to cells run by private firms and would have to pay for it once they sobered up. >> as a bbc spokeswoman explained, in the rush of news, he didn't have an opportunity to swap the items, so simply went with it. >> we wanted to wake to the internet gods took to photoshop to show us what he should have been holding instead. here's simon mccoy holding a roll of toilet paper, a can of baked beans, perhaps most appropriately, simon mccoy holding on to miley cyrus. what, too soon? how about this? ♪ i came in like a rainbow." >> we had to get that in somehow. the second awesomest thing on the internet today, going the distance and then some. who doesn't love the "rocky" training montage.
12:30am
when he runs around philadelphia with the dramatic orchestration at his backdrop. ♪ >> well, philly post writer dan mcal qaeda loves that montage like any other red-blooded american, but took issue with all of the incongruous running around the city of brotherly love. with the help of the track and field distance measuring tool, he charted rocky's route. if we were to believe that rocky hit up the italian market, independence hall, and the art museum in a single run, he would have run over 30 miles. that's longer than a marathon and more excruciating than a double feature of "rambo 3." and the third awesomest thing on internet today takes to us ukraine, where one man looked into a dog's eyes and was able to get a sense of his soul. there's a picture to have that dog found walking the streets of kiev. if that terrifying gaze rings a
12:31am
bell, that's because this dog bears an uncanny resemblance to everyone's favorite russian ruler, vladimir putin. this isn't the first time people have found similarities between putin and the animal kingdom. 14 hairless cats that look lie putin a few months back. and don't forget about dobby from the harry potter movies. putin dog is the latest entry that will haunt your dreams. i guarantee you will be seeing him everywhere. ♪ ♪ trying to catch me riding dirty ♪ >> you can find all the links for tonight's click3 on our website, "all in with chris hayes." we'll be right back.
12:32am
12:33am
12:34am
it's great for the world to have a pope talking about what this pope is talking about. grace, humility, peace, and compassion for others. if someone is gay and he searches for the lord and has goodwill, who am i to judge? on the subject of atheism, francis says nonbelievers should
12:35am
obey their conscious and that god's mercy has no limits. he's even suggesting that he's open to a debate on married priests. last week, i confessed i had a growing crush on the new pope, pope francis, who has been melting my lefty heart, and after that, people have been coming out of the woodwork on facebook and twitter, e-mailing me, basically saying, me too! so today when i got to work and i looked in my inbox and my friend, megan, who was raised catholic, sent me an e-mail with just the subject line, "this guy!" i knew who she was talking about before i even clicked the link. and what the link took me to was this incredible interview the pope. case in point, "a person once asked me in a provocative manner, if i approved of homosexuality. i replayed with another question, tell me, when god looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love or reject and condemn this person?" in this lengthy interview with
12:36am
the italian jesuit journal and republished in america, the national catholic review, pope francis was just getting warmed up. "we cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage, and us the yoo of o contraceptive methods. this is not impossible. i have not spoken much about these things and i was reprimanded for that. but when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. the speaking of the church for that matter is clear, and i am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. the church's pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. we have to find a new balance. this is a revolutionary interview. and the pope's attitude, as shown by his actions, and now espoused by sufficient clarity, it's having an effect. there are record number ofs of people showing up for his masses. they're trying to bring people to the church. this is what brings them to the church.
12:37am
charity, compassion, peace, or as he puts it, this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn. now, this is not an offhanded thing. pope francis knows what he's doing and he's sending a signal about making a break with the past. in that same interview, he again hints at an evolving role for women in the church, the feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions. the challenge today is this, to think about the specific place of women also in those places, where the authority of the church is exercised for various areas of the church. and if it feels like part of what i'm saying, part of what he's saying is i am not a right-winger, that is exactly what he's saying. the pope relates a story about becoming a jesuit superior at the young age of 36. "my authoritarian and quick manner of making decisions led me to have serious problems and to be accused of being ultraconservative. but i had never been a right-winger. it was my authoritarian way of making decisions that created problems." it seems like he's learned his lesson. when i was a teenager, my family
12:38am
and i went to rome and we went to st. peter's cathedral. and i remember going into the basement where they have the tombs of the popes, and my father making sure to seek out the tomb of pope xxiii. my dad kneeled in front of the casket to say prayers of thanksgiving for this pope, who had so completely revolutionized the church through vatican ii. and i remember thinking how weird it was that my dad was so moved by and emotionally invested in, of all things, a pope. i could never imagine feeling that way towards a pope. now, now that seems a little less strange. you make a great team.
12:39am
it's been that way since the day you met. but your erectile dysfunction - it could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away.
12:40am
ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.
12:41am
12:42am
house republicans today voted to kick almost 4 million people off of food stamps next year and nearly 3 million people each year over the next decade. >> on this vote, the yeas are 217. the motion to reconsidered is laid upon the table. >> righteous boos raining down, appropriately, because republicans did this by slashing almost $40 billion from the food stamp program over four years. mind you, this is at a time when nearly 47 million americans are living in poverty. a statistic that is only more striking when you consider that equates to one in seven people in this country. food stamps play a crucial roll
12:43am
in helping lift americans out of poverty. this 2011, it kept almost 5 million people above the poverty line. what happened today is beyond shameless. and here's what makes it worse. back in july, house republicans did this unprecedented thing. they broke away from 40 years of congressional tradition and cleaved the food stamp funding from the farm bill, because that bill would have only cut $20 billion from the program, half as much as they wanted to cut. in other words, they felt they weren't screwing poor people enough. but at the same time, they wanted to make sure they got the farm bill passed, because they so desperately wanted to stuff money in the pockets of recipients of farm subsidies, which is somewhere between $15 billion and $35 annually. some of the recipients of those subsidies are members of congress themselves, like republican representative, steve fincher from tennessee, who has received almost $3.5 million in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2012.
12:44am
to quickly summarize here, house republicans hacked off all the poor people from the farm bill, gave them their own special vote, which is what happened today, so that they could preserve corporate welfare. and some of those yes votes today came from steven fincher, who i just mentioned, and republican steve king from iowa, who california's jackie spear alluded to on the house floor as someone who has recently given $3,500 for food and lodging allowance during a six-day trip to russia. >> that particular member has 21,000 food stamp recipients in his district. one of those people who is on food stamps could live a year on what this congressman spent on food and lodging for six days. >> oh, and one more. this guy, congressman phil gingrey, a republican from georgia, who according to the "national review," was caught in a closed-door meeting whining that his staff can eventually move on and get rich while working as lobbyists, while, quote, i'm stuck here making $172,000.
12:45am
hey, congressman, do you think you're hurting now? try food stamps. joining me now is congressman dan kildee, democrat from michigan. in joon, he proposed an amendment to the farm bill that would have helped s.n.a.p. recipients maximize their benefits. is this rock bottom, congressman? >> you know, i've never seen anything like it. i've only been in congress nine months, but i've been in government my whole life. this is a new low. you know, instead of, you know, dealing with where we're bloated, instead of taking on wig tax breaks for corporations to balance our budget, or making sure that we have a buffet rule, where everybody pays their fair share, the republicans decided that they're going to take food out of the mouths of the hungry in order to satisfy their ideological goals. it's a shame. and it's mean. >> i'm going to give you the arguments that i saw republicans and conservatives making today. first of all, what are you talking about? it's america. no one's really hungry, a. b, we are just trying to make this program work better, be more efficient, and we are pushing work requirements,
12:46am
because that's -- we believe that people should work. we don't want the lady, indolent folks laying around, living off government largess. what do you think? >> they should get out to the communities i represent. if they want to see people who are hungry, come to flint, come to saginaw. i talk to them every single day, number one. and secondly, they talk about a work program. if they were serious about wanting people to have an alternative to being poor and have a job, they would work to create jobs in this country. the infrastructure bill would put people to work, rebuilding schools and bridges and roads. all this is is an effort on the part of the few who have control and power to make sure they continue to keep their big tax breaks, offshore their profits, and who do they have paying for it? who do they pick to pay for these big tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country? the poor. it's a shame.
12:47am
they ought to be -- honestly, they ought to be ashamed of themselves. this is mean. it's not just politics, it's not just policy. it's outright cruelty. >> will you do me a favor, congressman, and explain to folks. it's a little wonky, but i think it's an important point here. part of what the republicans did together was get rid of the waiver program. and the waiver program was basically, there are certain eligibility requirements. if you don't have a kid and you're out of work, there are certain fairly tight eligibility requirements of whether you can get food stamps or not. but in areas of elevated levels of unemployment, like the district you represent in the great state of michigan, the state could wave those eligibility requirements. am i right? and that's what they got rid of today. what -- what is the thinking there? >> you know, they just don't understand what it's like to be poor in america. and if you don't have a job and no prospect of a job, you have to be able to feed yourself. until we can get an economy moving that puts people back to work, what are these folks
12:48am
supposed to do? it's just beyond my comprehension that they can't just spend a little bit of time talking to real people in flint, saginaw, or any district in america. there are poor people. for some reason, they just don't know these folks. they just don't understand them. >> so you're telling me the constituents of your district in michigan aren't choosing to not work, so that they can collect, you know, $1.40 per meal on snap. >> it's the biggest myth that you continue to hear republicans try to sell us. that the folks out there who are on food stamps, they want it that way. they like it. look, since i took the food stamp challenge, i have talked to hundreds of people who have come to me and said, you know, thank you for doing that, because i never told anybody, but i was on food stamps. this is a situation where real people who are literally living from paycheck to paycheck, or meal to meal, will have that food taken away from them, because of a heartless, cruel
12:49am
congress, more concerned about patting themselves on the back for cutting the budget with no consideration whatsoever for what it means in human terms. they honestly ought to be ashamed of themselves. i just don't know how they look at themselves in the mirror after doing this. some things are political. this was just plain wrong. it's mean and it's wrong. >> congressman dan kildee of michigan, thank you so much. >> thank you, chris. >> we will be right back. was a truly amazing day. he was a matted mess in a small cage. so that was our first task, was getting him to wellness. without angie's list, i don't know if we could have found all the services we needed for our riley. from contractors and doctors to dog sitters and landscapers, you can find it all on angie's list. we found riley at the shelter, and found everything he needed at angie's list. join today at angieslist.com
12:50am
trust your instincts to make the call. to treat my low testosterone, my doctor and i went with axiron, the only underarm low t treatment. axiron can restore t levels to normal in about 2 weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18 or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied
12:51am
as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. ask your doctor about the only underarm low t treatment, axiron.
12:52am
all right. joining me now is maddie doppler at americans for tax reform, which is grover norquist's group, and sam cedar, host of the majority report and daily political talk show and a fantastic podcast everyone should listen to, i listen to basically every day. all right, here is what has me so frustrated, angry, and upset
12:53am
about the vote. the shameful, shameful vote that the republicans had today. before we argue it, i know, i know. before we argue it, let me just say this. so here's the thing that has been lost in all of this. there is already a cut to s.n.a.p. that is going to take effect this fall. it's going to be $36 a month. which you say, well, $36. $36 a month is a lot of money if you are poor, if you are poor enough to receive food stamps, and then this $40 billion cut, which is not going to happen and is not going to be made real, then obscures the fact that the senate, the democratic senate passed a farm bill that cut food stamps by $4 billion. that's one-tenth, but that's also a lot of money. we shouldn't even be cutting food stamps. we should be increasing food stamps. let's increase it by $10 billion a year or $50 billion. i don't care. people need to eat and there are a lot of poor people in this country. and what this connects to, and i'll shut up in a moment, what this connects to, the exact same thing happens with the sequester. the right flank does all kinds of crazy nonsense over to the right, and they drag it to the middle. right now we're having this debate about defund obama care.
12:54am
your boss, grover norquist says it's crazy, it's batty, don't do it. he's saying, you're crazy. what's going to happen is, when the whole thing is over, then the center is going to keep the sequester funding. the sequester was the most controversial policy in all of domestic fiscal politics that we have seen in this country in several years. and it's going to be the base lane. sam, am i wrong about this? does it drive you crazy as it drives me crazy? >> yeah, it does, but it also speaks to some larger problem in our culture, where this notion that we're going to be punishing poor people for being poor, essentially. and what's also stunning is that we hear constant, and i think some of this is legitimate, that the economy, you know, from the right, that obama has tanked the economy, that the growth is sort of not really happening. there's some truth to that, but you can't turn around and say, and now we are going to punish the people who are suffering under that.
12:55am
>> explain to me why this vote today was not morally monstrous. >> smart people need to disabuse themselves of the idea that spending more money means spending money well. that's what they're trying to do with this vote today. you're talking about how there's going to be a s.n.a.p. spending cut coming down the pipe, how we've got sequester we're already laboring around. if there's going to be less money, we need to spend it better. >> no -- so why isn't a person who has been unemployed for more than three months, who doesn't have a kid, who is living in poverty, right, meets the income requirement, has been unemployed for more than three months, which is the current requirement, in a very high unemployment year, why should that person not get a hundred bucks a month from the government -- >> what this bill does is says maybe the dead person shouldn't get the hundred bucks a month, the lottery winner shouldn't get a hundred bucks a month, that person -- >> so wait a second. you need to throw off 4 million people to get rid of those two people. >> they're the dead people. those are the -- >> dead people are not actually cashing those checks.
12:56am
there's 1% fraud in the program -- >> but guess what, if you write the -- >> wait a second -- >> so we're still spending the more. >> is 1% fraud, you're going to do an across-the-board 10% cut? it doesn't make any sense. there's no logic to that. >> translator: let me say this also. the argument eric cantor was making today was not an argument about fraud. i saw some people making the fraud argument, and i don't think the fraud argument holds up. there's incredibly -- >> 1%. >> that wasn't even -- eric cantor even gave up on this. his whole argument is, this is, we are just doing what bill clinton did, which is work requirements. people should be working. they shouldn't be sitting on the bill. here is the thing. unemployment in this country is 7.5%. there are three unemployed people for every job opening. it's not like people are sitting around. and critics of the obama economy say this all the time on the right. it's not like people are sitting around saying, man, it is awesome being unemployed in this economy. >> i know that! >> that was also the biggest failing of welfare reform under clinton, because it did not
12:57am
project out what happens when there are no jobs. >> welfare reform under clinton has been heralded as a success on the left and the right. >> not -- >> incorrectly heralded, a, but continue. >> well, but perhaps, then, this is a starting point for conversation on welfare writ large. what the bill was intended to do today was expand the work requirements that are already in tanf, that had 50 governors right and left sign off on, saying it was better -- >> you're saying is tanf? >> right. this expanded it to -- >> there are 40 governors in the country right now who want to maintain these waiver, because they have too many poor people who cannot eat! they cannot afford to eat. >> but there are those who you don't want to have them in place. and they have the chance now, they don't have to abide by -- >> they don't have to apply for a waiver. >> that's a completely opt-in situation. >> now they don't have the option to opt-in, but have the option to expand their programs to the communities that need them. >> no, this is all -- >> federal government -- >> correct.
12:58am
but they are able to set up their own programs now. they're able to have better control over -- >> where are they going to get the money for these programs? >> they still get the federal money. what they're doing, they're increasing the work requirements that are already in place in federal law, that welfare reform advocated signed off on the last 20 years and they're increasing federal matches for people who do this in order to increase the -- >> on work requirements, do you genuinely think, are you sitting here looking me in the face saying, there are a lot of people, hundreds of thousands, millions, because 4 million will be kicked off. let's say 2 million or a million of these folks, who are sitting around, not getting a job because they are getting $1.40 per meal? >> this is not an argument against the policy for you to impugn what you think the motives are. and of course i don't think that -- >> no, that is the logic of the policy! >> i'm telling you -- >> the logic of the policy is you're disincentivizing -- >> the logic of the policy, quite frankly, is that we are disincentivizing people getting into the labor market by giving them $1.40 for every meal, and we need to put work requirements, otherwise, the
12:59am
government, with its tasty, tasty candy will lure people away from being productive members of society, in an economy that has 7.5% unemployment. it is completely nonsensical. >> i also would like to know, how many lottery winners and dead people, if you're endorsing this policy, how many lottery winners and dead people -- do you think that we are funding? >> but does it really matter? if you're someone who believes in the safety net, which we all do, we just disagree to the extent to which size it should be, don't you think those people shouldn't be on -- you're disregarding this idea that there is fraud in the -- >> here, i think we all agree. the 1% of the people in the latest audit that we're getting, fraudulently, let's figure out a way to not have them get it. >> maddie, we ended on an agreement, on the 1%, and sam seder from majority report. thank you both. that is "all in" for this evening. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. good evening, rachel. >> good evening, chris. thanks very much. that was fun. >> thank you. >> thanks to you at home for
1:00am
staying with us for the next hour. do you ever watch the prison shows here on msnbc? they come on friday nights, after our show, usually, and they're always playing on the weekends? the prison shows on msnbc are really good, and they get really good ratings. so i know that you say, oh, no, i'm not watching them. statistically speaking, at least some of you are. actually, a lot of you are. actually, more of you that are watching me are watching the prison shows. but if you have ever watched one of msnbc's really excellent prison shows, you have probably seen it start with a warning that the subject matter may be for mature audiences only. you've seen that, right? well, this here, tonight, is not an msnbc prison show, this is, in fact, our lead story tonight about what is happening in washington right now, and whether or not we're going to have a government shutdown. but in order to do that story, i actually have to air that same warning now, before i show you what happened today in washington.